In an interview with Progress in October, you said that ‘apart from Germany, for particular reasons, no other country, so far as I am aware, has ruled out the use of force. I don’t see that we are in a different position from our allies’. That’s not the case now, is it?
From my conversations with allies and partners, there’s a widespread recognition that without the threat of force we would not even have got weapons inspectors into Iraq, and that the UN has to be prepared to enforce the resolutions it has passed over the last twelve years. The letters signed by European leaders suggest that most of our allies and partners take a pretty similar view to ours. And as far as I’m aware, France for example has not ruled out the use of force, although they have expressed different views on what the next steps might be. Clearly there is a debate going on in the Security Council now.
Surely the fact that some countries can veto a UN resolution if they think it is unjustified is just as much proof of the UN’s legitimacy as other countries’ right to propose a resolution they feel is justified?
It’s time to decide whether the Security Council is going to spend another twelve years passing umpteen resolutions on this subject or whether it is going to enforce the resolutions it has passed in the last twelve years. It’s clear that Saddam Hussein has continued to lie and obstruct, so it would be unreasonable to come to any other conclusion. This is not a dry procedural issue, but a question of dealing with a threat to our security before it’s too late.
It is obvious the timetable for war slipped from what the UK and US had originally envisaged. What impact has this had on our troops’ effectiveness? (For example, it’s often said that it is undesirable to fight too far into the summer because of the heat.)
There is not, and never has been, any preordained timetable for military action. People who keep saying it’s impossible to operate in the Iraqi summer are probably the same ones who said it would be impossible to operate in the Afghan winter. But it is certainly true that the international community cannot expect Iraq to be influenced by the threat of force indefinitely. This is not so much a question of military effectiveness as of resolve. If the international community shows itself to be unwilling to enforce its own resolutions, there is no prospect of Saddam Hussein taking it seriously.
What kind of government would you like to see replace Saddam Hussein? Will it be run by Iraqis?
Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people, and we believe it deserves a government that properly represents the Iraqi people. It deserves a government that will provide stability and prosperity, uphold human rights for all its people, and have peaceful and constructive relations with its neighbours and the world. In the event of military action, we would want to make sure that a stable and secure environment existed for a new Iraqi government. So it would be a question of dealing with any humanitarian challenges, and helping the Iraqi people to make the transition to the self-government they have been denied for so long.
How long do you envisage British troops being in Iraq?
If our armed forces deploy into Iraq, neither we nor the Americans have any desire to keep them there a moment longer than necessary. Iraq is for the Iraqis. Equally, we would not desert them in their hour of need, and we are prepared to play our part in helping them recover from the damage Saddam has done. If that means that we need to provide a military contribution to their security for some time, then we will face up to that responsibility.
What does Britain see as the next stage in the ‘war on terror’?
It would be wrong to suggest that there is a pre-determined ‘next step’ in our campaign against international terrorism, although disarming Iraq, peacefully or by force, will make an important contribution to world and regional security, and will send a powerful message to other rogue states or terrorist organisations that seek to develop, or trade in, WMD. However, we and the vast majority of the international community are still using all the methods at our disposal to identify groups such as Al Qa’eda, track their members, prevent further atrocities and bring to justice those responsible for the appalling crimes already committed.
Is there not a problem that our troops are becoming over-stretched?
Clearly, the armed forces are currently very busy in the light of the scale of commitments, notably contingency preparations in relation to Iraq and the firefighters’ industrial action. We are always conscious of the strain which this places upon our people. However, the Chiefs of Staff have agreed with me that, with careful management, the deployments that we have announced to the Middle East region are both achievable and sustainable.
The US seems to have no problem spending more on defence to deal with new threats. Will you be making the case for an increase here?
The government will make available the resources that are needed. Last year’s spending review settlement represented the biggest sustained real increase in defence spending plans for twenty years. It allows us to invest in the strategies and technologies needed to meet the new strategic challenges – international terrorism as well as other potential risks. Gordon Brown has also announced that significant resources will be provided for any further operations.
The logic of the Prime Minister’s moral case for war – relieving the suffering of the Iraqi people by removing Saddam Hussein – should surely lead us to replace the governments of other dictatorships, like China, for example?
Iraq is a particular case of a regime that has defied the clearly expressed will of the international community for a long time. I recognise that some people perceive inconsistencies in the approach taken towards different countries and crises. But it is illogical to say that because, from that viewpoint, the international community may get it wrong in some cases it should therefore get it wrong in every case. The international community failed miserably to deal with Rwanda in the mid-90s – was it therefore wrong to intervene successfully in Sierra Leone?
Why are we doing so little over North Korea? Surely Kim Jong-il presents a much greater threat to security than Saddam Hussein?
We are seeking a peaceful resolution to both. There is no single template for how we treat countries of proliferation concern but our approach to both is fundamentally the same. With North Korea we are seeking to address the nuclear issue peacefully, though political and diplomatic pressure, with our partners and through the UN. That is what we have also tried to do over ten years in the case of Iraq. North Korea ‘s recent admissions about its continued development of WMD are though extremely worrying. If North Korea does not comply with IAEA requirements, the UN Security Council will need to give a considered response to developments.
Would America have found it winning support for their case easier had the Bush administration taken a more proactive approach to achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians?
Iraq and the Middle East peace process are two separate issues which should be addressed on their own merits, but I do recognise that many people, particularly in the region, tend to link the two. President Bush has recently made it clear that he wants to see an Israel safe and secure and working towards the creation of a viable Palestinian state. This means the killing on all sides must stop and we must work as quickly as possible towards a final status agreement, and ending settlement activity in the occupied territories. The British government remains totally committed to reviving the Middle East peace process.
The US electorate have an opportunity for regime change in 2004. Would you like to see US foreign policy determined once again by a Democrat?
Regime change in the United States, to use your barbed phrase, is of course possible because the American people having the opportunity to vote for their President. Whatever your views of the Florida ballot in the last presidential election, Americans are able to exercise a democratic choice that is denied, for example, to the citizens of Iraq.
In terms of the Republican administration’s foreign policy, we agree with much of their strategic analysis, particularly in tackling international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Remember that it was Tony Blair who set out the UK’s concerns about weapons of mass destruction when he first met President Bush in February 2001. But remember, too, that there are also a number of major foreign policy issues where we disagree with the United States. Unlike the US, the UK has signed and ratified the International Criminal Court; and the UK strongly supports the Kyoto agreement on climate change, unlike the US.
In sum, the UK’s long relationship with the US – our strongest ally – means that we will continue to share much of their approach to foreign policy, but I, like your readers, would of course prefer to share that policy with the Democrats again from 2004.
Will allowing the US to use Fylingdales as part of their early warning system make the UK more of a terrorist target?
We do not believe that there is an increased terrorist threat to the UK as a result of the upgrade. We cannot escape the fact that developing the capacity to defend against the threat of a ballistic missile attack from a rogue state could be in our long-term defence interests. The government agreed to the request from the US to upgrade the computer hardware and software of the early warning radar, but this does not in itself commit this UK to any greater participation in the US missile defence programme.
Some Labour party members, or even some of your colleagues, who are against military action may feel that their only principled response is to resign from the party (or the government). What would you say to dissuade them?
Certainly there are some party members who oppose military action in any circumstance. That is a principled position that I respect, but do not share. Nobody wants war. Least of all people working in the Ministry of Defence, military or civilian. But the reality is that after twelve years of refusal by Iraq to dismantle its chemical and biological weapons, in violation of the will of the United Nations, military action may be the only way to contain the threat they pose. Some party members may still disagree. Even so, I would argue that individuals would be wiser to remain in membership and air their views inside the party.
Does it concern you that public expression of opposition to the war on Iraq may have, or may already had, a negative impact on support for the wider ‘war on terror’?
I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that support for our campaign against international terrorism has dropped. And I think the vast majority of people support very strongly the need to disarm Iraq of its chemical and biological weapons and cut its links to terrorist groups. What they are concerned about, from the best motives, is the impact of any action on the people of Iraq, who have already suffered a great deal under Saddam’s regime. It is important to remember that it is the population of Iraq who stand to gain most from the disarming of their country.
You have said (to the defence select committee) that the UK would consider a nuclear response to the use of chemical and biological weapons. Does this not contravene our long-standing ‘no first use’ policy? Would such a response really be ‘proportional’ and does it not show that conflating nuclear weapons with chemical and biological weapons in the term ‘weapons of mass destruction’ is misleading?
We have never in fact had a ‘no first use’ policy. I’ve repeatedly made it clear that we would contemplate using nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances of self-defence and in conformity with international law. But it does not help to speculate about hypothetical scenarios involving the threat or use of nuclear weapons. I agree that the term ‘weapons of mass destruction’ is not always a helpful and that it covers a wide range, but it is widely understood and we have to accept that.
The US is keen to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction, including, with countries such as Iraq, a nuclear capability, yet is developing bunker-busting ‘mini-nukes’ (such as the B61-11). Is this not hypocritical, to say the least, and a threat to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty?
I think such questions should be addressed to the US. As you acknowledge, they do attach great importance to non-proliferation. They have also said that they are not developing new nuclear weapons and have recently reconfirmed that their moratorium on nuclear testing remains in place.